Did I say I agreed with it no I didn't and no I don't but that's the reality we live in now where you have a choice to accept corporate greed or not. We do live in a world where DRM is protecting nearly all aspects of the digital entertainment industry.

All my current PC games have been purchased through Steam with the exception of maybe 1 or 2. I have over 70 Xbox 360 games so don't lecture me about how it used to be in the old days. I used to own a Commodore 16 not a C64 or even a 32 and before that I was playing ZX Spectrum or a Apple 2e (I think it was that I absolutely loved Taipan). I've been gaming for a very long time and am older than the average gamer.

No one forces you to buy there stuff however they are well within their rights to dictate how you use their intellectual property whether that be a game, movie, music or anything else if you don't like don't buy it. It really is that simple. The OP is complaining about something that has been the norm for quite some time but it's not going to stop people from playing their games and at the end of the day if you don't want to pay for it there are other means of getting to play these.

So stop complaining about it get over and accept the fact you don't own the software, you didn't make it and you certainly don't decide on how they protect their profit margin and start worrying about whether or not your going to be a moaner or put up your (I'll be nice here) hard earned cash buy the game for yourself and play it or not put up your hard earned cash and decide whether or not your going to play it or not.

Lastly we are talking about a game here that has produced some pretty average if not damning player reviews too it won't be long before this game hits the bargain bins anyway (edited to add that you can now pick up the PC version brand new for less than $50). I installed the game and played about half way through then unistalled it myself as really couldn't see myself wasting more time on it.

Wow, that was one of the better rants in a long time. I especially like how the owners of an entertainment product want people to pay for the use of it. Oh the indignation...

Seriously though I don't think anyone disagrees that it's a pain and it would be nice if you could pass on software but I also think it's be nice if people didn't pirate software. Neither is going to happen any time soon.

Azzura: Why shouldn't he be able to play it. As long as the key is only currently being used/played by him...whats the problem?

He didn't pirate it, he is playing with a legit key. I should say...he is trying to play with a legit key.

My car is owned and registered to me....I can lend it to anyone I want...I just have to give them the key. It would seem pretty crazy to think if Honda had a sign on the dash that read - sorry the car is registered to someone else...you must buy your own Honda (or w/e) car.

In this case the key is your origin account. Give them that and they can play it and you can't. Same as your car.

Since you dropped a bunch of names to indicate that you are an old school gamer, let me ask you a question:

Current game purchasing model (single use license only) vs. old school model (where you actually own the software), which one is more fair towards the hard earned cash you spent?

You see, in a classic economy, we consumers spent money to buy goods from merchants. 10 bucks for a chair, fair trade upon mutually agreed price, no string attached.

But after corporates got big and rich, they start treating us like thieves and beggers hold under their mercy. The price of chairs will be defined by all the chair making corporates, not you. You can only sit in the chair, if you stand on it, it's a breach of EULA and we can retrieve the chair from your ownership without refund (we sell ladders BTW). Only you can sit in the chair. If you lend the chair to anybody else or sell it in a 2nd market, then you are a thief.

If you don't like the conditions? Tough, shut up and get lost.

Why can't I complain? "Oh we are here already so suck it up and get over it" is exactly the kind of attitude that allowed corporates to get this far.

If nobody complains, corporates will only push further and further. Look at SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.

To the other guy, protest against corporates' greed != pirates. Find a better way to troll, thank you very much.

"Wendy Grossman explains the legal gray area that surrounds End-User License Agreements (EULA) that Microsoft et al slaps on every piece of software it sells to consumers:

If you did read the terms, you might be surprised. Eulas typically specify that the software's publisher is not liable if anything goes wrong. They typically specify the publisher's preferred jurisdiction for legal disputes. And some are even more restrictive: some graphics packages have been known to specify that they cannot be used in the production of pornographic images. Yet these licences are, as Hanlon complained, not really contracts: you generally cannot read them before you buy (rather than use) the software, and you can't negotiate terms.

One of the problems that needs to be resolved in the copyfight is the validity of licenses, which not only includes all EULAs, but Creative Commons and open-source licenses like the GNU as well. An argument cannot be made that the consumer and seller participated in a voluntary-exchange, when often the terms of the EULA are not agreed to prior to the purchase. How legitimate are the claims of manufacturers that consumers are merely buying the CDs and not the permission to install and use the software for which the consumer (rightly, I might add) believed he is paying?

We do not accept that Ford or American Eagle (a clothing company) has any say in how we use the products they sell us after it is sold to us. Why then do we give software companies this right?"

"In English law," he says, "the archetypal case that everybody learns is the hotel that put the notice inside the wardrobe." The notice said that all clothes left in the hotel were left there at the customer's own risk. "The courts robustly said that the guest has made his contract across the reception desk table, and it was done and dusted at that point, and notices in wardrobes have nothing to do with the contract that is already in the past." The argument that software licences are now an industry standard and therefore everyone knows what the terms are going to be he dismisses as "an argument of desperation" and "just drivel".

tl54: Since you dropped a bunch of names to indicate that you are an old school gamer, let me ask you a question:

Current game purchasing model (single use license only) vs. old school model (where you actually own the software), which one is more fair towards the hard earned cash you spent?

You see, in a classic economy, we consumers spent money to buy goods from merchants. 10 bucks for a chair, fair trade upon mutually agreed price, no string attached.

But after corporates got big and rich, they start treating us like thieves and beggers hold under their mercy. The price of chairs will be defined by all the chair making corporates, not you. You can only sit in the chair, if you stand on it, it's a breach of EULA and we can retrieve the chair from your ownership without refund (we sell ladders BTW). Only you can sit in the chair. If you lend the chair to anybody else or sell it in a 2nd market, then you are a thief.

If you don't like the conditions? Tough, shut up and get lost.

Why can't I complain? "Oh we are here already so suck it up and get over it" is exactly the kind of attitude that allowed corporates to get this far.

If nobody complains, corporates will only push further and further. Look at SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.

To the other guy, protest against corporates' greed != pirates. Find a better way to troll, thank you very much.

Just to clarify this for you, since you seem to be incapable of understanding basic reasoning - you have NEVER owned the software/music/video content of the disks you purchase unless the game was specifically distributed as freeware or the music/video is in the public domain.

You have always owned the actual physical disk you buy, but the price is primarily for a single "license" to access the content. You are attempting to portray yourself as an old school gamer, but surely any actual old school gamer would remember the crusades undertaken by the RIAA against tape trading and lader CD burning well before anyone had ever heard of MP3s or Peer to Peer piracy.

The fact that companies are now more proactively enforcing their intellectual property rights doesn't change the fact they have always existed.

On which system I find to be most fair for my hard end $$$ is actually a moot point as I've spent the money so therefore can play as I see fit so my money is fine however if you were my friend and I had finished my game under the older system i would be able to give it to you to play no worries as long as I still had the key. So in that regard for you as my friend whom I want to give it too the older system is more fair however for me as the preson who's not worried about buying it in the first place (as I spent my money) it makes no difference as on both systems old or new I'm getting to play as I see fit.

I don't like online registration for anything I do agree that If I buy a game I should be able to use it how I see fit but i am not going to moan and complain that I can't pass it on to a friend for free at anytime. If I like a game I will pay for it and recommend it to friends in hope they do the same.

One thing you could do is invest in a console then you can have the best of all worlds, you can buy, rent, sell and pirate as you see fit obviously I do not recommend the last option.

I said I've been gaming for a long time. I remember all of things, Shareware, Freeware, BBS, video player to video player recording, tape cassette game copying and yes there was a lot of money at times being put into the protection of IP's just due to the restrictions on tech back then too they just like now for those that way inclined sooner or later will bypass whatever form of protection your using.

I agree that the corporates are probably raking in more than ever now but they also spend a lot of money as well (except maybe the minecraft people lol) so if they want to protect it as best they can or increase their sales by using DRM good for them as I said in my previous post.

If I want it I will buy it myself even if that takes me a month or two of saving (just cause I said I was old and have a large collection it doesn't mean I have $$$ to throw away on games anytime I want sigh...).

Celticknife: Just to clarify this for you, since you seem to be incapable of understanding basic reasoning - you have NEVER owned the software/music/video content of the disks you purchase unless the game was specifically distributed as freeware or the music/video is in the public domain.

I understand this perfectly, and I am saying it's wrong.

Okay let's talk movies instead of chairs. I can buy a movie DVD and watch it with all my family members, it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable, right?

But can I do the same with video games? No, because for some mysterious reasons, video games are subject to 'single use license' scheme.

Do you think this is fair?

Or do you think MPAA is falling behind in terms of enforcing their IP - in a perfect world we should purchase 5 movie viewing licenses if there are 5 family members in the household?

I don't like terms of sales these days. Was looking at starcraft when came out, but don't want to have to be in internet range everytime play it.

When the next generation consoles come out, from what i've read once a game has run on one it won't run on any other console, so can't take to a friends place and play there.

My solution, just don't buy expensive games. I didn't buy starcraft even though type interested in. I won't be buying the next gen consoles. Last game i brought for pc was generals.

If a game is $20 approx i don't mind, but not paying $60 plus for something i don't own, and or if a server shut down it stops working. Haven't looked at stream, but heard prices can get quite good on there.